Large waves
 

Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were breaking
over the large ships?

I need to send this to a friend and I had deleted it from my list.

Thanks

Jim Carter

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, "Jim Carter" wrote:

Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were breaking
over the large ships?

I need to send this to a friend and I had deleted it from my list.

Thanks

Jim Carter

I don't remember who posted it. But, I do remember that Karen Smith had several
posts in that thread. You might retrieve all the headers, then sort by author,
find Smith's posts, and search that way.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, Jim Carter wrote:

Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were breaking
over the large ships?

I need to send this to a friend and I had deleted it from my list.

Probably:

http://tv-antenna.com/heavy-seas/

But, the following is also rather impressive:

http://www.naval.com/heavy-seas/3/

"thunder" wrote in message
...

Probably:

http://tv-antenna.com/heavy-seas/

But, the following is also rather impressive:

http://www.naval.com/heavy-seas/3/


Thanks Thunder, That's it!

Jim Carter

John,
That sounds like an all day job. :-)
Paul

John H wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, "Jim Carter" wrote:


Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were breaking
over the large ships?

I need to send this to a friend and I had deleted it from my list.

Thanks

Jim Carter


I don't remember who posted it. But, I do remember that Karen Smith had several
posts in that thread. You might retrieve all the headers, then sort by author,
find Smith's posts, and search that way.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were breaking
over the large ships?

That was me skippering the CG vessel. My crew insisted that it would
not take waves that large, but I pleasently proved them wrong, and set
a new standard fo CG operations.

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:01:49 -0500, Paul Schilter ""paulschilter\"@comcast dot
net" wrote:

John,
That sounds like an all day job. :-)
Paul

John H wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, "Jim Carter" wrote:


Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were breaking
over the large ships?

I need to send this to a friend and I had deleted it from my list.

Thanks

Jim Carter


I don't remember who posted it. But, I do remember that Karen Smith had several
posts in that thread. You might retrieve all the headers, then sort by author,
find Smith's posts, and search that way.

I didn't say it would be fun!

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

He's got you running. You must be tired of the retractions...

HaKrause wrote:
HaKrause wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, "Jim Carter"
wrote:


Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were breaking
over the large ships?



That was me skippering the CG vessel. My crew insisted that it would
not take waves that large, but I pleasently proved them wrong, and set
a new standard fo CG operations.




Nope. This is the "Harry Identity Thief" again, posting from roadrunner
in Columbus, Ohio.

John H wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:01:49 -0500, Paul Schilter ""paulschilter\"@comcast dot
net" wrote:


John,
That sounds like an all day job. :-)
Paul

John H wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, "Jim Carter" wrote:



Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were breaking
over the large ships?

I need to send this to a friend and I had deleted it from my list.

Thanks

Jim Carter


I don't remember who posted it. But, I do remember that Karen Smith had several
posts in that thread. You might retrieve all the headers, then sort by author,
find Smith's posts, and search that way.


I didn't say it would be fun!


Oh come on you blokes don't be mean:-) assuming he has at least "some"
education; he might actually "learn" something if he roots around in my
well written, long experience based, technically correct, detailed,
properly archived, non hidden posts:-).

I bet he'll absolutely enjoy reading the list of Krause lies:-) always
pasted in the liar's own words; nothing less!!!!:-) (because at one
stage he went into the google archives & tried to delete as many as he
could find, then being the liar he is he then tried denying he'd ever
posted some of his lies, it was a good thing I have a proper computer
operating system & with the help of several in this NG have great
memories we were able to retrieve his lies for your endless entertainment:-)

OOPS almost forgot the thank parody Krause; well done & thanks!!! I
always get a giggle & don't be put off by the simpleton Krause tug
forelocks, they're almost as stupid as he is. I have to say it's getting
tough for you though, your posts are more believable than Krauses!!! &
your techical info is more correct & shows more boating
knowledge/experience than he ever has!!! (you must actually be a boater
so you have an unfair advantage there of course:-)) What a hoot I hope
you enjoy posting them as much as we all enjoy reading then keep up the
great work!!!:-)

K

Speaking of entertainment here's a Krause lie now:-)

This lying idiot has manufactured a story about his father being
the biggest OMC dealer on the US NE coast, needless to say Krause then
says that's where he learned all he obviously doesn't know about boats:-)

Here's just one of the lies from the "father" series, try to
remember he's talking $3000000 in the 70s!! Honestly it's embarrassing
that a grown man would lie like this I guess that's the standard of
union thugs ???


I sold off nearly $3,000,000 in new motors and boats, depressing
the new boat
industry in southern Connecticut for an entire season. Everything
was sold...every cotter pin, every quart of oil, 30 days after I started.
For near full-retail, too.

Is there a known antidote for the poison in your pen?

Ask your village witch doctor whether your obsession is a sign of
robust mental health.
You might do a bit of good by passing along the answer to others in
your camp.

Every single thread these days turns into you, Tuuk, and the ubiquitous
phony Harrys mounting a non-stop attack on folks- (usually Harry). You
think he's worth all the time and energy? Your activities reflect more
poorly on you than they do your victims. Anybody who seeks out
opportunities to behave the way you and your crew have been doing has
some very serious issues to deal with.

Harry Krause wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:

He's got you running. You must be tired of the retractions...

HaKrause wrote:

HaKrause wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, "Jim Carter"
wrote:


Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were
breaking
over the large ships?





That was me skippering the CG vessel. My crew insisted that it would
not take waves that large, but I pleasently proved them wrong, and set
a new standard fo CG operations.






Nope. This is the "Harry Identity Thief" again, posting from
roadrunner in Columbus, Ohio.



Not at all. I think the fool is doing great damage here, not to me, but
to the newsgroup in general, by dispensing his idiocy. If you can't see
why, then you are also the fool.


Parody Krause's posts are more correct than anything Krause has managed
to plagiarise in here over the years. For sure Parody Krause actually is
a boater, probably actually owns a boat of his/her own & knows more
about boating than Krause ever will.

K

Speaking of entertainment here's a Krause lie now:-)

This lying idiot has manufactured a story about his father being
the biggest OMC dealer on the US NE coast, needless to say Krause then
says that's where he learned all he obviously doesn't know about boats:-)

Here's just one of the lies from the "father" series, try to
remember he's talking $3000000 in the 70s!! Honestly it's embarrassing
that a grown man would lie like this I guess that's the standard of
union thugs ???


I sold off nearly $3,000,000 in new motors and boats, depressing
the new boat
industry in southern Connecticut for an entire season. Everything
was sold...every cotter pin, every quart of oil, 30 days after I started.
For near full-retail, too.

Harry Krause wrote:
wrote:

Is there a known antidote for the poison in your pen?

Ask your village witch doctor whether your obsession is a sign of
robust mental health.
You might do a bit of good by passing along the answer to others in
your camp.

Every single thread these days turns into you, Tuuk, and the ubiquitous
phony Harrys mounting a non-stop attack on folks- (usually Harry). You
think he's worth all the time and energy? Your activities reflect more
poorly on you than they do your victims. Anybody who seeks out
opportunities to behave the way you and your crew have been doing has
some very serious issues to deal with.


I think the "Obsessed with Harry" group believes it is going to
"accomplish something." It is going to convince any reasonable person
that this is a newsgroup to avoid.




As opposed the Gould & Krause being the OT kings who have driven most
from this group???

No what "we" achieve is knowledge to all about boats & boating Oh yeah
& we alert people to your lies & Gould's NG spamming deceptions.

Krause has actually given the socialists "money" so he can post:-) What
a hoot & he had to change his ID because they've already kicked him out
twice before, now all I need do is make sure he gets chucked again, my
absolute pleasure!!!

K

Speaking of entertainment here's a Krause lie now:-)

This lying idiot has manufactured a story about his father being
the biggest OMC dealer on the US NE coast, needless to say Krause then
says that's where he learned all he obviously doesn't know about boats:-)

Here's just one of the lies from the "father" series, try to
remember he's talking $3000000 in the 70s!! Honestly it's embarrassing
that a grown man would lie like this I guess that's the standard of
union thugs ???


I sold off nearly $3,000,000 in new motors and boats, depressing
the new boat
industry in southern Connecticut for an entire season. Everything
was sold...every cotter pin, every quart of oil, 30 days after I started.
For near full-retail, too.

Chuck,
You seem to spend a lot of time telling everyone how sick and mentally ill
Karen is.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Is there a known antidote for the poison in your pen?

Ask your village witch doctor whether your obsession is a sign of
robust mental health.
You might do a bit of good by passing along the answer to others in
your camp.

Every single thread these days turns into you, Tuuk, and the ubiquitous
phony Harrys mounting a non-stop attack on folks- (usually Harry). You
think he's worth all the time and energy? Your activities reflect more
poorly on you than they do your victims. Anybody who seeks out
opportunities to behave the way you and your crew have been doing has
some very serious issues to deal with.

On 1 Apr 2005 18:52:30 -0800, wrote:

Anybody who seeks out
opportunities to behave the way you and your crew have been doing has
some very serious issues to deal with.

=====================================

Careful now.

Under woman will turn on you like a pit bull with a bad hair day,
which is not to say that I don't agree.

No what "we" achieve is knowledge to all about boats & boating Oh
yeah
& we alert people to your lies & Gould's NG spamming deceptions.

************

You delude yourself. Several of your fellow travelers in character
assasination have openly admitted they know nothing about boats or
boating, have no interest in the subject, and are only here to screw
with HK and others. Charles Stanley (who seems to have disappeared
about the time Tuuk appeared) once said, "I'm not a boater, that's your
and Krause's rice bowl".

Tuuk is the on-topic master of boating related posts? Your posts are on
topic, and not thinly veiled excuses to go off on Krause or somebody
else on your sh*t list? I'll need to stop typing for several minutes
while I roll on the floor in convulsions....

Back now. But it's still nonsense.
Take yourself- if you new half of what you pretend to know you would be
secure enough and confident enough in your knowledge that you could
discuss conflicting ideas without resorting to an onslaught of lies and
insults. If you knew- but you don't. I've never met a genuine expert in
*any* field who behaves as you do.

Genuine experts say, "I think you're wrong, and here's why....." You
say, "I think you're wrong, because I have a catalog of you alleged
lies that goes back about ten years- and in 1999 you
posted............. and furthermore you are a lowdown, dirty,........."
Anybody besides myself see a difference?

Chuck,
You seem to spend a lot of time telling everyone how sick and mentally
ill
Karen is.


*********

Her line count is about 10 times mine. I don't spend enough.

I suggested that she ask a health professional if her obsession with HK
is healthy.
I'm not qualified to pronounce her sick or mentally ill from a clinical
perspective- but she's the one who says it's right to "call 'em as you
see 'em". Unfortunately, some of us are constrained by a need to
adhere to some shred of civility so calling 'em as they really appear
would be embarrassing all the way around.

I maintain my opinion that people who follow others through a newsgroup
looking for any and all openings to make personal attacks suffer from
some serious issues. Do you disagree?

Chuck,

Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact than
Karen, but not much.

I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?




wrote in message
ups.com...
Chuck,
You seem to spend a lot of time telling everyone how sick and mentally
ill
Karen is.


*********

Her line count is about 10 times mine. I don't spend enough.

I suggested that she ask a health professional if her obsession with HK
is healthy.
I'm not qualified to pronounce her sick or mentally ill from a clinical
perspective- but she's the one who says it's right to "call 'em as you
see 'em". Unfortunately, some of us are constrained by a need to
adhere to some shred of civility so calling 'em as they really appear
would be embarrassing all the way around.

I maintain my opinion that people who follow others through a newsgroup
looking for any and all openings to make personal attacks suffer from
some serious issues. Do you disagree?

Chuck,


Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been
just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred
of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact
than
Karen, but not much.


I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so
they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal
attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?


*******

Karen seldom comments on OT threads. She gets angry when people discuss
boats and boating. Notice that she keeps her comments on the techinical
issues as short as possible, dismisses anybody with whom she disagrees
with a nasty insult, and then uses her presence in the thread to write
6-10 paragraphs about the poster she's truly obsessed with.

I agree that people initiating OT threads solely for the purpose of
starting
a fight, rather than fostering discussion, are suffering from some
problems as well.

Some of the previously chief offenders in the insult and uproar
category seem to have toned it down a bit, lately. No point to name
names, folks who have observed the same thing I have observed will have
a good idea what person or persons that comment refers to.

The worst current problem in the NG seems to be that as soon as one
particular party comments on an on-topic subject, a group of
non-boaters (and or boaters who aren't here to ever discuss boating, at
all) hijack the thread and begin posting forged messages, (applauded
and encouraged by KSmith), writing long, vicious attack posts, and
effectively ruining the discussion for anybody who doesn't want to sort
through the
exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi for 6-8 posts before
finding maybe one or two more actual comments on the subject at hand.

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.

It's regrettable that petty personal arguments, bickering, and feuds
invade every single thread on any subject these days. The
schidt-flinging, non-boating, troublemakers should have the decency not
to screw up the on topic discussions with unprovoked personal attacks
on the participants. My two cents worth, here- you can have the soap
box back now.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Chuck,


Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been
just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred
of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact
than
Karen, but not much.


I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so
they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal
attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?


*******

Karen seldom comments on OT threads. She gets angry when people discuss
boats and boating. Notice that she keeps her comments on the techinical
issues as short as possible, dismisses anybody with whom she disagrees
with a nasty insult, and then uses her presence in the thread to write
6-10 paragraphs about the poster she's truly obsessed with.

I agree that people initiating OT threads solely for the purpose of
starting
a fight, rather than fostering discussion, are suffering from some
problems as well.

Some of the previously chief offenders in the insult and uproar
category seem to have toned it down a bit, lately. No point to name
names, folks who have observed the same thing I have observed will have
a good idea what person or persons that comment refers to.

The worst current problem in the NG seems to be that as soon as one
particular party comments on an on-topic subject, a group of
non-boaters (and or boaters who aren't here to ever discuss boating, at
all) hijack the thread and begin posting forged messages, (applauded
and encouraged by KSmith), writing long, vicious attack posts, and
effectively ruining the discussion for anybody who doesn't want to sort
through the
exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi for 6-8 posts before
finding maybe one or two more actual comments on the subject at hand.

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.

It's regrettable that petty personal arguments, bickering, and feuds
invade every single thread on any subject these days. The
schidt-flinging, non-boating, troublemakers should have the decency not
to screw up the on topic discussions with unprovoked personal attacks
on the participants. My two cents worth, here- you can have the soap
box back now.


You make yourself sound so innocent of any wrongdoings Chuck....but we all
know better. ;-)

On 2 Apr 2005 07:28:41 -0800, wrote:

Chuck,


Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been
just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred
of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact
than
Karen, but not much.


I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so
they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal
attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?


*******

Karen seldom comments on OT threads. She gets angry when people discuss
boats and boating. Notice that she keeps her comments on the techinical
issues as short as possible, dismisses anybody with whom she disagrees
with a nasty insult, and then uses her presence in the thread to write
6-10 paragraphs about the poster she's truly obsessed with.

I agree that people initiating OT threads solely for the purpose of
starting
a fight, rather than fostering discussion, are suffering from some
problems as well.

Some of the previously chief offenders in the insult and uproar
category seem to have toned it down a bit, lately. No point to name
names, folks who have observed the same thing I have observed will have
a good idea what person or persons that comment refers to.

The worst current problem in the NG seems to be that as soon as one
particular party comments on an on-topic subject, a group of
non-boaters (and or boaters who aren't here to ever discuss boating, at
all) hijack the thread and begin posting forged messages, (applauded
and encouraged by KSmith), writing long, vicious attack posts, and
effectively ruining the discussion for anybody who doesn't want to sort
through the
exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi for 6-8 posts before
finding maybe one or two more actual comments on the subject at hand.

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.

It's regrettable that petty personal arguments, bickering, and feuds
invade every single thread on any subject these days. The
schidt-flinging, non-boating, troublemakers should have the decency not
to screw up the on topic discussions with unprovoked personal attacks
on the participants. My two cents worth, here- you can have the soap
box back now.

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of
Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H


*************

Experiment with reading for content, John.

"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Are "the libs" harrassing one particular individual? Are "the libs"
posing as one of the conservative posters to make phony statements? Are
"the libs" the group that specializes in multi-paragraph attack posts
denigrating people's ethnic heritage, marital status, etc, etc, etc,
etc? Well, if they are then they are certainly included in my criticism
of that behavior.

Funny thing, John. I never identified anybody as liberal, conservative,
or otherwise.
*You* self-identified the conservative nature of some of the folks
f**king up every on-topic thread with non-stop attack posts, not I.

In fact, I covered the entire spectrum with this comment:

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.


But you apparently chose to read only about half that statement so you
could interpret it as an "attack" on conservatives.

Why was that, John? Any specific reason? Again, may I suggest you read
for content and react to what is actually written rather than to
something you assume or presume
a poster might secretly feel? I take responsiblity for what I write,
not for your wild guess about what I might have meant.

On 2 Apr 2005 09:35:16 -0800, wrote:


"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Let's see...

You refer to Harry as 'Harry'.

You refer to others as 'his obsessed nemesi' (sic).

Does either of those sound a little more derogatory than the other?

Are those who lambaste Harry any more obsessed than Harry is with those he
lambastes?

You are not as unbiased as you give yourself credit for, Chuck.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

JohnH,
I read Chuck's post to include Harry's personal attacks after every post you
make.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On 2 Apr 2005 07:28:41 -0800, wrote:

Chuck,


Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been
just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred
of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact
than
Karen, but not much.


I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so
they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal
attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?


*******

Karen seldom comments on OT threads. She gets angry when people discuss
boats and boating. Notice that she keeps her comments on the techinical
issues as short as possible, dismisses anybody with whom she disagrees
with a nasty insult, and then uses her presence in the thread to write
6-10 paragraphs about the poster she's truly obsessed with.

I agree that people initiating OT threads solely for the purpose of
starting
a fight, rather than fostering discussion, are suffering from some
problems as well.

Some of the previously chief offenders in the insult and uproar
category seem to have toned it down a bit, lately. No point to name
names, folks who have observed the same thing I have observed will have
a good idea what person or persons that comment refers to.

The worst current problem in the NG seems to be that as soon as one
particular party comments on an on-topic subject, a group of
non-boaters (and or boaters who aren't here to ever discuss boating, at
all) hijack the thread and begin posting forged messages, (applauded
and encouraged by KSmith), writing long, vicious attack posts, and
effectively ruining the discussion for anybody who doesn't want to sort
through the
exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi for 6-8 posts before
finding maybe one or two more actual comments on the subject at hand.

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.

It's regrettable that petty personal arguments, bickering, and feuds
invade every single thread on any subject these days. The
schidt-flinging, non-boating, troublemakers should have the decency not
to screw up the on topic discussions with unprovoked personal attacks
on the participants. My two cents worth, here- you can have the soap
box back now.

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of Harry's
****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Chuck,

You must need read many of Harry's posts, because 90% of the ones I read are
personal attacks on individuals. Harry used to make 200+ posts a day,
making personal attacks denigrating people, for every possible reason.

I do not think the Mini-Harry adds anything to the boating discussions, but
I do find his spoof of Harry to right on. The big difference between
Mini-Harry and the real Harry is: Mini-Harry is funny, the real Harry is
not.





wrote in message
oups.com...
It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of
Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H


*************

Experiment with reading for content, John.

"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Are "the libs" harrassing one particular individual? Are "the libs"
posing as one of the conservative posters to make phony statements? Are
"the libs" the group that specializes in multi-paragraph attack posts
denigrating people's ethnic heritage, marital status, etc, etc, etc,
etc? Well, if they are then they are certainly included in my criticism
of that behavior.

Funny thing, John. I never identified anybody as liberal, conservative,
or otherwise.
*You* self-identified the conservative nature of some of the folks
f**king up every on-topic thread with non-stop attack posts, not I.

In fact, I covered the entire spectrum with this comment:

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.


But you apparently chose to read only about half that statement so you
could interpret it as an "attack" on conservatives.

Why was that, John? Any specific reason? Again, may I suggest you read
for content and react to what is actually written rather than to
something you assume or presume
a poster might secretly feel? I take responsiblity for what I write,
not for your wild guess about what I might have meant.

JohnH,
Every few months, Chuck will scold Harry in a good natured manner, what
Chuck refuses to understand is Harry set the tone of rec.boats years ago.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On 2 Apr 2005 09:35:16 -0800, wrote:


"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Let's see...

You refer to Harry as 'Harry'.

You refer to others as 'his obsessed nemesi' (sic).

Does either of those sound a little more derogatory than the other?

Are those who lambaste Harry any more obsessed than Harry is with those he
lambastes?

You are not as unbiased as you give yourself credit for, Chuck.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

You must NOT read many of Harry's posts, because 90% of the ones I read
are personal attacks on individuals. Harry used to make 200+ posts a day,
making personal attacks denigrating people, for every possible reason.

I do not think the Mini-Harry adds anything to the boating discussions,
but I do find his spoof of Harry to right on. The big difference between
Mini-Harry and the real Harry is: Mini-Harry is funny, the real Harry is
not.





wrote in message
oups.com...
It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of
Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H


*************

Experiment with reading for content, John.

"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?

Are "the libs" harrassing one particular individual? Are "the libs"
posing as one of the conservative posters to make phony statements? Are
"the libs" the group that specializes in multi-paragraph attack posts
denigrating people's ethnic heritage, marital status, etc, etc, etc,
etc? Well, if they are then they are certainly included in my criticism
of that behavior.

Funny thing, John. I never identified anybody as liberal, conservative,
or otherwise.
*You* self-identified the conservative nature of some of the folks
f**king up every on-topic thread with non-stop attack posts, not I.

In fact, I covered the entire spectrum with this comment:

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.


But you apparently chose to read only about half that statement so you
could interpret it as an "attack" on conservatives.

Why was that, John? Any specific reason? Again, may I suggest you read
for content and react to what is actually written rather than to
something you assume or presume
a poster might secretly feel? I take responsiblity for what I write,
not for your wild guess about what I might have meant.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:13:49 -0500, "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote:

JohnH,
I read Chuck's post to include Harry's personal attacks after every post you
make.


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Apr 2005 07:28:41 -0800, wrote:

Chuck,


Karen has done a good job of getting under your skin, and you have been
just
as good at attacking her and trying to get under her skin. Your "shred
of
civility" in your discussions with Karen might show a touch more tact
than
Karen, but not much.


I have found that anyone who posts controversial OT threads just so
they can
use these "cut and paste" articles as a vehicle to make personal
attacks
suffer from some serious issues. Do you disagree?


*******

Karen seldom comments on OT threads. She gets angry when people discuss
boats and boating. Notice that she keeps her comments on the techinical
issues as short as possible, dismisses anybody with whom she disagrees
with a nasty insult, and then uses her presence in the thread to write
6-10 paragraphs about the poster she's truly obsessed with.

I agree that people initiating OT threads solely for the purpose of
starting
a fight, rather than fostering discussion, are suffering from some
problems as well.

Some of the previously chief offenders in the insult and uproar
category seem to have toned it down a bit, lately. No point to name
names, folks who have observed the same thing I have observed will have
a good idea what person or persons that comment refers to.

The worst current problem in the NG seems to be that as soon as one
particular party comments on an on-topic subject, a group of
non-boaters (and or boaters who aren't here to ever discuss boating, at
all) hijack the thread and begin posting forged messages, (applauded
and encouraged by KSmith), writing long, vicious attack posts, and
effectively ruining the discussion for anybody who doesn't want to sort
through the
exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi for 6-8 posts before
finding maybe one or two more actual comments on the subject at hand.

If a person cuts and pastes an anti-war, anti-Bush, or pro-war,
pro-Bush whatever item into the NG, he or she deserves whatever crap
results in the thread.

It's regrettable that petty personal arguments, bickering, and feuds
invade every single thread on any subject these days. The
schidt-flinging, non-boating, troublemakers should have the decency not
to screw up the on topic discussions with unprovoked personal attacks
on the participants. My two cents worth, here- you can have the soap
box back now.

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of Harry's
****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


As there've been no 'exchanges' between Harry and I, I wonder if that makes 'me'
the obsessed nemesis, or Harry the obsessed nemesis.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message
...

You must NOT read many of Harry's posts, because 90% of the ones I read
are personal attacks on individuals. Harry used to make 200+ posts a
day, making personal attacks denigrating people, for every possible
reason.


You have more identities here than BaskinRobbins has flavors. You mention
Krause frequently yet I haven't seen more than one or two posts where he
even acknowledges you exist.

I really do believe there are at least a dozen posters in here who are as
Krause claims obsessed with him. There's you, Mr. Tuuk, the poster who sighs
herself Karen Smith, Jimh, and others and some of you your target ignores
completely.

It must be tough to be so ignored by your enemy no matter how hard you try.

Harry,

Didn't you used to support banning all handguns?

Why are you now bragging about always keep a "6" close by.

No sane reasonable person would ever conclude that JohnH would wish harm
upon anyone, including yourself. For you to insinuate that he would
actually try to harm you, shows how delusional you are.






"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On 2 Apr 2005 09:35:16 -0800, wrote:



"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?


Let's see...

You refer to Harry as 'Harry'.

You're really stuck on me, Herring. I guess if I ever see you following me
into Deale, I should keep a close watch on my "six," because you obviously
are after my butt.



See How We've Spent Our
Homeland Defense Grant:

http://urlsnip.com/290935


--
Bush and the NeoConvicts who control him
are destroying the once-great United States.

"SoFarrell" wrote in message
news:1112471274.75842dadff01b0279aea4875d54dfa83@t eranews...
It must be tough to be so ignored by your enemy no matter how hard you
try.

No it isn't. I really do not care if Harry responds to my post, he reads
every one of them.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Why do you keep discussion me, s.f.b., if you're not obsessed with me?

Harry, I think that is the question JohnH was asking.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Sherlock is one of the "Smith" IDs, and he is in my bozo bin and thus,
ignored. I filter out right-wing vermin and those who in my opinion have
nothing to add to the flavor of rec.boats.

Harry, here you go again, nipping at my heels, you must be obsessed with me.

..

Chuck,
As usual you hit the nail on the head. I find it hard to believe how
some people can become so obsessed with someone else on a news group. It
sort of reminds me of a married couple that just push each others
buttons. Are these people so insecure that they feel they have to defend
themselves from other's opinions? I fully recognize that more then a few
will disagree with me on several subjects. Fine, I don't have a problem
with that. I'll listen to their point of view and if I still don't
agree, well, then we can agree to disagree. To let someone on here get
you to the point of relentless pursuit of that person isn't very
healthy. IMHO :-)
Paul

wrote:
Is there a known antidote for the poison in your pen?

Ask your village witch doctor whether your obsession is a sign of
robust mental health.
You might do a bit of good by passing along the answer to others in
your camp.

Every single thread these days turns into you, Tuuk, and the ubiquitous
phony Harrys mounting a non-stop attack on folks- (usually Harry). You
think he's worth all the time and energy? Your activities reflect more
poorly on you than they do your victims. Anybody who seeks out
opportunities to behave the way you and your crew have been doing has
some very serious issues to deal with.

Dan,
I have no respect for this impostor. In my book he's lower then whale
****. It's one thing to be anonymous, it's an other to take someone
else's identity. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to post under your name
and make you look like an idiot. This impostor is just scum!
Paul

Dan Krueger wrote:
He's got you running. You must be tired of the retractions...

HaKrause wrote:

HaKrause wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:49:08 -0500, "Jim Carter"
wrote:


Can anyone remember the web site with the large waves that were
breaking
over the large ships?




That was me skippering the CG vessel. My crew insisted that it would
not take waves that large, but I pleasently proved them wrong, and set
a new standard fo CG operations.





Nope. This is the "Harry Identity Thief" again, posting from
roadrunner in Columbus, Ohio.

Harry,
Yea, but it was humorous.
Paul

Harry Krause wrote:
K. Smith wrote:

Oh come on you blokes don't be mean:-) assuming he has at least
"some" education; he might actually "learn" something if he roots
around in my well written, long experience based, technically correct,
detailed, properly archived, non hidden posts:-).




Oh, the smell of it.

John H,
Which Harry Krause? The impostor running around the newsgroup is a coward!
Paul


John H wrote:

It's just those damn conservatives and the one's who are sick of Harry's ****.
It's certainly none of the libs or Harry himself, right Chuck.

Sounds like sanctimonious, hypocritical crap to me.

Around 4/2/2005 1:50 PM, Paul Schilter wrote:

Dan,
I have no respect for this impostor. In my book he's lower then
whale ****. It's one thing to be anonymous, it's an other to take
someone else's identity. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to post under
your name and make you look like an idiot. This impostor is just scum!
Paul


At least the fake Harry's posts are so asinine that he/she/it is
/really/ easy to spot... Just killfile the idiot and move on.


--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats."
-Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows

So,
You're correct, if more people just ignored their "nemesis" this would
be a more peaceful group. After a certain point it no longer matters who
"started it".
Paul


SoFarrell wrote:
"N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message
...

You must NOT read many of Harry's posts, because 90% of the ones I read
are personal attacks on individuals. Harry used to make 200+ posts a
day, making personal attacks denigrating people, for every possible
reason.



You have more identities here than BaskinRobbins has flavors. You mention
Krause frequently yet I haven't seen more than one or two posts where he
even acknowledges you exist.

I really do believe there are at least a dozen posters in here who are as
Krause claims obsessed with him. There's you, Mr. Tuuk, the poster who sighs
herself Karen Smith, Jimh, and others and some of you your target ignores
completely.

It must be tough to be so ignored by your enemy no matter how hard you try.

N S,
Watch my six is a military term for "watch my back". Goes off the clock
quadrants. 12 would be ahead, 3 to the right, 6 to the rear, and 9 to
the left.
Paul


N S Sherlock wrote:
Harry,

Didn't you used to support banning all handguns?

Why are you now bragging about always keep a "6" close by.

No sane reasonable person would ever conclude that JohnH would wish harm
upon anyone, including yourself. For you to insinuate that he would
actually try to harm you, shows how delusional you are.






"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On 2 Apr 2005 09:35:16 -0800, wrote:




"Exchanges between Harry and his obsessed nemesi", for example.
Specifically includes Harry, wouldn't you agree?


Let's see...

You refer to Harry as 'Harry'.

You're really stuck on me, Herring. I guess if I ever see you following me
into Deale, I should keep a close watch on my "six," because you obviously
are after my butt.



See How We've Spent Our
Homeland Defense Grant:

http://urlsnip.com/290935


--
Bush and the NeoConvicts who control him
are destroying the once-great United States.